New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-03-28
A COMMON SENSE VIEW OF 1T.
SOMETHING NEW IN THE FISHERY DISPUTE
HOW A CANADIAN EX-MINIsTER INTERPRETS THE


HOW A CANADIAN EX-MINIsTER INTERPRETs THE
TREATY OF 1918.
OTTAWA, March 81 Especial. There is probably
not better constitutional lawyer in Canada than
William MacDougal. He was one OF the original
trainers of the of Confederation and has served Tor
many years member OF the DOMINION Caome',
holding the oce of Minister of Public Works we'll
as that of Minister of Justice Yesterday afternoon he
was asked # he thought the Canadian Governments
Interpretation of the Treaty OF 1918 the correct one
He said:
We NAV put q construction upon that treaty or
expand its language to include caees and subjects not
contemplated by either party at the time, but we can
not compel the United States to accept our cons'ruc
submit to a court of law. My own OPINION is that
the first article of the treaty OF 1918 the only pfrt OF
the treaty involved in the present dispute IL limited
exclusively to the subject of fishing; that its sole OBJ
iect was to nhibit American fishermen from taking,
drying curing fish within three marine miles
of the coasts BAYS and harbors mentioned in the arti-
ce that subject OF trade commerce IN other
commodities is not included or contemplate. =, 1865,
Then is it your opinion that fishing vessels may
under the terms of the treat, engage in trade j.
Yes, if licensed commissioned by then own Gov
ernment to do There is nothing in the treaty pro-
hibting trade in fish or other commodities one tnng
and only one was renounced by the United States
namely the liberty heretofore enjoyed or CLAIMED py
the inhabitants OF the United States TO take, dfy or
cure fish within three miles of certain specified coas ts
The Americans simply rcnounced right they had en-
loved tor the consde ations mentioned IN the treaty
The prOviso about admitting nsnermtn LOT shcitcI'
etc. was inserted from abundant caution. as lawyers
saw lest the general words of the atlon should
be construed to nonntercOnrsc. The last clause
of the article which is always omitted by those VINO
contend that the words for other purpose what
yer prohibit the purchasing OF anything eXcept
wood shows plainly that the treaty-makers had out
matter iii view namely, to prevent American hsh-
from taking, drying or curing fish WITHIN thc
three-mile limit"
"What do YOU think will be the effect of the Retail
iation bill ;"
"Non-intcrcoursc by ships between Canada and the
United States unless the negotiations said to be gong
on in London should result in a new treaty. NO sane
man believes that q nation of GO,OOoOoO, the most
intelligent the most wealthy, the most unassailabe,
the mos free among the nations of the EARTH Will sub
nit to he told by a subordinate colony OF less than
s. 600 O00 You may continue TO trade with us, but
ONLY on condition that yon transport your goohs IN
such vessels and conduct your business ny such OF
your citizens as approve. You may license vessels
engaged in the deepses fisheries TO touch an0 trade IN
foreign orts but II they into ours ana Duy or
sell anything but wood, will seize. confscatc anu
sell their ships and pocket the proceeds"
The publication of the interview here THIS evening
created turore among the Government supporters at
present in town. in the course OF long editorial TINS
evening The Free Press says: The Tor, pocy is
such that Canada is drifting slowly and surey INTO
pear 10 recognize the danger disposed TO oDnn
AN intelligent comprehension of the issues involved
Some morning next summer the electors VIII pc ds
agrecably awakened from their stupcfacton anu rear
i've when late the lack of states ma1shp end even
want of common prudence. displayed by the "oVern,
throughout in its treatment OF this conventional
mat ter"